OK—here's a little quiz. Select the Native American out of the following group:

According to Scott Brown, you should be able to just look and "see" which of these three is Native American.

The correct answer: all of them.

Of course, that answer should really be a bit more complicated.

Susan Thompson identifies herself as a Penobscot basketmaker. Her website describes her as the child of a Penobscot woman, an artist, and a "red-haired Mainer," and the sister of another recognized Penobscot artist. Her work is included as Penobscot in the collection of the Abbe Museum in Maine.

Thressa Tate is featured on a poster that reads "We Are Cherokee," described there as "Cherokee-Irish." "We Are Cherokee" is a project that presents the Cherokee Nation's perspective on an ongoing dispute about constitutional changes that would eliminate citizenship in the Cherokee nation for Freedmen—descendants of African slaves—unless the descendants had at least one Cherokee ancestor enrolled in the "Dawes Rolls" records made between 1898 and 1906. The poster and a video on the "We Are Cherokee" website, deliberately present Cherokee Nation citizens with a wide range of physical appearances.

Cedric Cromwell is the chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, which won federal recognition in 2007 after initially being denied approval—in large part because Wampanoag tribal members have ancestors who converted to Christianity and married their non-Wampanoag neighbors.

This was the case famously explored by James Clifford in his bookThe Predicament of Culture. As Clifford wrote,

During the fall of 1977...the descendants of Wampanoag living in Mashpee...were required to prove their identity...these citizens of modern Massachusetts were asked to demonstrate continuous tribal existence since the seventeenth century....Modern Indians, who spoke in New England-accented English about the Great Spirit, had to convince a white Boston jury of their authenticity.

Among those testifying against the Mashpee Wampanoag was historian Francis Hutchins. Like Scott Brown, he treated Native American identity as something visible and obvious. Drawing on his testimony, an author on Wikipedia wrote:

Without accounting for cultural change, adaptation, and the effects of non-Indian society, Hutchins argued the Mashpee were not an Indian tribe historically because they adopted Christianity and non-Indian forms of dress and appearance, and chose to remain in Massachusetts as "second-class" citizens rather than emigrating westward (note: to Indian Territory) to "resume tribal existence." Hutchins also noted that they intermarried with non-Indians to create a "non-white," or "colored," community.... Hutchins appeared to require unchanged culture, including maintenance of a traditional religion and essentially total social autonomy from non-Indian society.

The concept that Scott Brown is invoking is not simply identity—it is authentic identity. What is at issue in the idea that you can just "see" someone's ancestry is a very constraining concept of authenticity as inborn, continuous (unchanging) essence. It becomes inauthentic when it changes in any way—including by contamination through marriage outside of a notional closed culture.

Attempts to confine “Indian” groups to essentialized spaces [are] resisted by some Native writers, while others recognize a need for essentialist categories as a key strategy in the struggle for social justice and a perpetually renewed sense of Native sovereignty... a politics of cultural sovereignty, which demands a notion of “Indian” essence or “authenticity” as a foundation for community values, heritage, and social justice.

In this debate, Scott Brown, by questioning Elizabeth Warren's physical appearance, is demanding that Native Americans conform to "essentialist categories." This stands in tension with an emphasis on "community values, heritage, and social justice."

The Abbe Museum brings together thoughts on identity and authenticity from tribal members, including authorities, themselves. Roldena Sanipass, a Micmac woman, is quoted there as saying:

"Identity is learned. It’s a seeing thing, it’s a knowing thing. Everything that is passed down is identity because that’s all we’ve got!"

This is a different kind of "seeing": not seeing some authentic essence in a person's face, but learning how to see, in a community that reproduces its culture, including changing it over time.

The Abbe Museum website also has a section that applies more clearly to what Scott Brown is engaged in: stereotyping. They write:

Many people are familiar with negative stereotypes about American Indians, including the drunken Indian, being violent or war-like, receiving government handouts, or being lazy and living on “Indian time.”

This is where we may begin to make sense of this attack by the Brown campaign, what he thinks will resonate with voters and turn them away from Warren's popular, and populist, message of economic justice.

His insinuation, apparently contrary to any facts, is that Warren gained something by reporting her family's traditional belief that they had Native American heritage.

By gesturing to her face, and claiming that "as you can see, she is not" Native American, Brown taps into skepticism in contemporary U.S. culture about Native American survival.

If you don't obviously look like an "authentic" Indian (read: unchanged, "pure blooded," outside history and time) then you may have Native American predecessors, but you are inauthentic.

If you are an inauthentic Indian and profit from it, then you are fulfilling that negative stereotype of getting things you don't work for handed to you.

Warren, for her part, expresses a position based on individual heritage rather than group identity:

Warren responded that she had learned of her heritage from stories told by her family. “When I was growing up, these were the stories I knew about my heritage,” she said. She also said that when her mother and father wanted to get married, her father’s family said no because “my mother was part Delaware and part Cherokee.” “This is my family, this is who I am, and it’s not going to change,” said Warren.

For her, as for many U.S. citizens, being "part" Native American is a personal and family identity.

Media reports cite, with frustration, a New England Historic Genealogical Society statement that says they could verify that members of Warren's family considered her great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith Cherokee. That isn't tribal identity of any kind; but that doesn't mean it is inauthentic as family tradition and personal identity.

But that kind of personal history is not only insufficient to support the normative view of Native American "identity" as imagined by the majority population: it is by definition inauthentic because it exists in history, entangled with other historical actors and moments, instead of being confined to a separate space and unchanging time.

Part of what Scott Brown is doing is obvious: encouraging resentment of imagined, unearned advantages claimed by people who are not authentically entitled to them.

But more than this, the comment suggests that you cannot "really" be Indian without it showing on the surface.

That means it's not merely impossible for Brown to imagine Elizabeth Warren actually having Delaware and Cherokee ancestors.

It would also be impossible following this logic to recognize any Harvard law professor as Native American, since by definition that position and practice is not traditional, not unchanged since the 18th, 19th, or early 20th century.

And that implication in the claim to be able to "see" authenticity on the surface says a lot more about Scott Brown than about Elizabeth Warren.

Your post obviously does not apply to Elizabeth Warren because she makes the same point as Scott Brown - of course with the opposite conclusion, but it does raise some interesting points.

For instance, at what level can a person claim they are African American (Black)? If an obviously white person claims their ancestor from 1890 was black, do they get credit and become equal as an obviously "black" or dark skinned person for minority status?

The obviously white person will not be treated as a minority and will not experience racism but the obviously "black" person will have experienced racism.

In the US, as the Native American issue in the Brown-Warren campaign makes clear, there is a long tradition of thinking of ancestry in terms of proportions of "blood" inherited from ancestors thought of as belonging to absolutely distinct categories. "Blood quantum" for Native Americans measured identity in percentages (1/32), while the "one drop rule" for African Americans held that "one drop" of African blood was sufficient for black identity.

While I agree with you that visual cues do not identify deep ancestry, historical and geneological research does. Your post takes Mr. Brown's statement during the debate; the "as you can see" quote, and make it seem as though he is directing viewers to look at her physically.

Numerous geneologists, actual Cherokee included, have looked at Ms. Warren's family history and have found conclusive proof that she is NOT AT ALL Cherokee. In any way. In fact, they have found that one of her ancestors actually was part of the Tennessee militia that guarded the Cherokee on their march on the Trail of Tears out to Oklahoma!

Ms. Warren's problem is not her heritage. The problem is character. This argument has been turned 180 degrees from Warren's character to Brown's questioning of her identity. It does not matter whether her family says that they are Cherokee, or whether any Native American has been a Harvard professor. The problem is that she has been unwilling to apologize for claiming to be something that she is not for personal gain.

Identity is fluid, but there is a finality to it. I can not claim to be Puerto Rican or Amish because I can't. My family is not, nor have I ever been. Ms. Warren, whether family stories say so, is not Cherokee. She has to accept the reality of it. What pundits and Left-leaning academics have to do is stop blaming Mr. Brown for pointing out the problem and ask their colleague why she continues to deny reality. Defending her by posting an article like this is partisan and muddies the waters even further.

But forgive me; I think I was pretty clear about what I wanted to talk about in this post. It is both why Scott Brown thinks it is politically useful to attack Warren on this point, and what it tells us about how he-- like many people in the US-- think about Native American identity.

If you watched the debate segment, you will be struck, as I was, that Brown indeed was directing viewers to just look at Elizabeth Warren and not "see" a Native American.

I would love you to engage with my actual blog post. I think we could have an interesting exchange.

Identity is not just fluid; it is fragmented, contradictory, and not written on our faces, except as we stereotype and impose specific expectations about physicality of ancestry.

Such expectations are used against many people of Native American descent who others feel do not manifest the right physical attributes.

Scott Brown's attack against Elizabeth Warren on this is not really convincing to me as a "character" claim (sorry!)-- there is no evidence that it is working for him (polls show her gaining ground). So I find his insistence on this point culturally interesting, because he is investing so much in the argument that you can "see" that Warren is not Native American.

Nothing you have said changes that. Gratuitous political attacks on me aren't engaging with the central question I ask: can you really just "see" that someone is not Native American?

My apologies for not directly hitting on your original topic, but as you are well aware, politics seems to infest everything on this site. As long as we can keep the discussions apolitical, I am absolutely happy to dive into this debate!

I understand the argument you were making in reference to Scott Brown's comment during the debate, and I agree with you concerning the multi-dimensional aspects of identity today. Some of my work on ancestral versus modern identity mirrors your ideas.

Your thesis posits the question of "visible" identity, rather, that ones identity (cultural, genetic, etc) can be seen through physical characteristics. In most cases, I would argue that you can, since physical characteristics are outward symbols of genetic history. That being said, our deep genetic history can be masked or hidden by more prominent physical features; the farther back time-wise you go, the less prominent the physical morphology.

As it pertains to Native American characteristics, you would have to look at the historical inter-breeding of NA peoples with other groups to see just how "identity" has played a role in identification. Today, you can rarely find a "full blooded" Native American, unless you travel to a reservation. And most people who claim NA ancestry do so from generations back. Therefore, most of the physical characteristics of their ancestor have been masked by their dominant genetic history.

If I had been Mr. Brown's campaign manager, I would have facepalmed my forehead when he said that in the debate. But I would argue that her "truthfulness" about her heritage does matter and shows a flaw in her judgment.

I assume that you are not an anthropologist, so if you are, apologies.

You write that you can use physical appearance as a proxy for ancestry since physical characteristics are outward symbols of genetic history. That being said, our deep genetic history can be masked or hidden by more prominent physical features; the farther back time-wise you go, the less prominent the physical morphology.

Anthropologically, no. The big rethinking of race as ancestry has taught us that ancestry is usually complex, and thus the idea that one's "genetic history" is reflected in any simple way in appearance is misleading. The idea of "deep genetic history" is another way to restate "authenticity", and like it, rests on an assumption that real (deep, authentic) identity should be stable.

My point is that this is a particular way of thinking about real, authentic identity, and one that breaks down in the face of actual history. There has probably never been a time in US history (and pre-US, North American colonial history) when separate ethnic/racial groups with sharp boundaries could be defined.

Assuming or claiming that "full blooded" (there's that blood metaphor again) Native Americans are only to be found on reservations is another symptom of how peculiar this kind of thought is. Discrete, stable, changeless, and biologically distinctive groups are imagined as living somewhere removed from the other populations in the country.

Although I am not an anthropologist by trade (a minor in anthropology during undergrad is my claim to fame) that does not mean that I do not understand the nuance of genetics and physical characteristics. My work with history and EP has given me some frames of reference on this topic.

I agree with you 100% when it comes to the fluidity of ancestry, with instability from all sides and the "mixing" of different groups of people. I never meant to say that there are clear-cut lines in ethnic or racial backgrounds as, like you said, history and anthropology has shown us.

The problem is the difference between "race" as a subset of Homo sapien and the regional characteristics that have developed due to adaptation and selection. Classifying race or ethnicity by physical characteristics is something that we do scientifically which gives us reference points to place people into certain groups. We can tell the difference between physical characteristics of a person from Asia and a person from Europe based on these characteristics. We naturally define ourselves as groups by visual identification; looking at a publc school lunchroom is a prime example. Humans use visual cues to gain insight about others around them. Even though I disagree with what Mr. Brown said, or how he said it, his statement is not axiomatically wrong. She does not look like what conventional wisdom says a Native American should look like. Now, whether that is racist or not is a personal opinion.

My research on ancestral versus modern identity has focused mainly on the idea that identity has only been fluid in the past few hundred years, spurred on by increased cultural contact and now by social media. I have hypothesized that ancestral humans belonged to a small community where identity did not vary, and contact with other communities was limited, cautious, and sometimes violent. Nowadays, people can sympathize with and choose their identity and be whomever they want to, irregardless of location or heritage. Ms. Warren, and many others, have decided to adopt a history and a culture that is not theirs traditionally.

I thought I was being civil and I thought that you raised some good points. I was seriously wondering about the hypothetical that I presented based on what you posted. Perhaps I should have just phrased it as where does physical appearance end and self identity based on heritage begin? I thought the hypothetical explained my point better. I guess I was wrong and it appeared that civility was lacking.

I have been to a Caribbean island where everyone is very dark skinned and everyone self identifies as a white European and go to great lengths to find a European ancestor to prove it. You cannot see the European heritage, but they claim to be able to see it and discriminate against each other mercilessly because some don't look white enough. I guess I was wrong to relate my experience to your post because although I did not mention this, it was the basis for my comment and why I use the hypothetical (same issue but with an American twist).

And I really think this is a non-issue as far as the two politicians are concerned, but not for society as a whole. They're both equally wrong because they both made the same comment. One claimed to be native american and you can tell because she looks like "them" and the other says she couldn't be native american because she doesn't look like "them." They both agree that you can see ethnic heritage and they are obviously both wrong.

"Where does physical appearance end and self identity based on heritage begin?"

These are not separate things. Identification is something one does, or that is done to one. In either case, one may use, or have used against one, physical characteristics, habits, language, and histories (who your parents are known to have been).

There are two questions in my pair of posts: what is accepted as "authentic"-- and how is identity validated (by seeing, by hearing, by doing? by law, by custom, by experience?)

To even defend Warren's claim at all show a bias so obvious that this particular blog is not fit for print. This is a disgrace to the publication and an insult to the field of psychology.

Warren so obviously lied for personal gain as to be pathetic. She has taken advantage of what might be a family rumor at best. Time and again she has even changed her story regarding the person from whom she inherited her alleged ancestry.

defending Warren for any reason is a gross example of liberal bias and unfair to readers looking for scientific, neutral information regarding psychology.

thanks for insulting our intelligence. I hope not to see future works from you here.

i am a bit disturbed by Ms. Warren's claim about her ancenstry, but even more so by Mr. Brown's remark during the debate.

my blond-haired, blue-eyed daughters, may not look Indian - probably because they aren't wearing the appropriate buckskin and beads that Mr. Brown saw in his history book. but they are enrolled tribal members.

one passage that caught my attention in this article was . . .

"Part of what Scott Brown is doing is obvious: encouraging resentment of imagined, unearned advantages claimed by people who are not authentically entitled to them."

I can't help thinking that Mr. Brown has no qualms with the unearned advantages he receives for being a white male - he only has problems with other may receive advanges for. and let me assure you, the advantages he receives for being a white male, far exceed those one might have retained (not received) for being indian.

It has been torture to read the many posts on various sites regarding Scott Brown and his staff. For the most part I did not find much hate but I did find dismissal. To object to Brown's staff and their frat-boy behavior is said to be silly, ridiculous, P.C. correctness, liberal, overly sensitive. It brings to mind Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Where am I in this conversation?

It did not make me angry. It made me terribly sad that Indians are still not considered 'attached' to ethnic, minority, racial conversation. By this I mean, substitute any other of those definitions into Scott Brown's staff and their "tomahawk war whooping" activities and then wait for the reaction. It would be loud and fast - and it should be. The African-American communities would not tolerate it; the Jewish communities would not tolerate it, AND the media would pay attention! But, even my admired Rachel Maddow, while making it know that Brown's remarks and behaviors were racist, did not ask an Indian to comment. She asked Melissa Harris Perry, an historian and a person I also admire. But the point remains, no one even asks 'us' what we think or feel about very public actions that specifically involve us.

I once saw Barbara Jordan speak at a women's conference. She talked about race and I will never forget the first moment I became proud to be an Indian. She said, that as a black person she had always been measured by the one drop of blood 'rule'. She addressed Native women specifically, telling us that we should not be ambivalent about claiming our Indian identity. She, with that amazingly powerful and moving voice, commanded us to identify ourselves with pride "Your are Indian!" So, Scott Brown's words and behaviors are racist, but what is it when the rest of the commentators don't even bother to ask an Indian?

And that is why it took me a week to even get to a point to write these two posts (see the second one, where I try to think through how Elizabeth Warren is thinking about authentic identity).

Most troubling for me (as an anthropologist) is how pervasive the static stereotypes are that allow non-Indian people to decide who "is" Indian (really).

I was consequently pleased to draw attention, in my next post, to the thoughtful reflections of Kevin Noble Maillard, who-- unlike all the non-Indian commentators-- is ready to leave the questions debatable, rather than to reach a hasty judgment.